Congressional Budget Office November 24, 2014 Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: Design Issues Presentation at the Hoover Institution Energy Task Force Meeting Stanford University Terry M. Dinan Senior Advisor, Microeconomics Studies Division
Background ■ American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act passed by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009; was not voted on in the Senate ■ In the 113 th Congress, seven carbon-pricing proposals have been introduced or released in draft form - Six would establish a tax; one would establish a cap-and-trade program ■ Since ACES Act, several regulatory measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions have been proposed or finalized C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Regulatory Measures Finalized or Proposed Since 2009 ■ CAFE standards for 2012-2016 vehicles finalized April 1, 2010 – Raise average fuel economy for new vehicle fleet to 34.1 mpg in 2016 ■ CAFE standards for 2017-2025 vehicles finalized August 28, 2012 – Reduce GHG emissions to 163 grams per mile and raise average fuel economy for new vehicle fleet to 49.6 mpg in 2025 (54.5 mpg if GHG limit met by solely by improved fuel economy) ■ Clean Power Plan (CPP) for electricity generators proposed on June 18, 2014 – Projected to reduce emissions from power sector by 30 percent relative to 2005 levels by 2030 – Sets state-specific rate-based goals based on building blocks: more efficient coal boilers, increased use of natural gas, more clean energy, more efficient use of energy – Allows states flexibility in how to meet those goals ■ State emission-reducing programs, such as California’s cap-and-trade program and increasing use of renewable portfolio standards C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Design Issues and Considerations for a Carbon Tax: ■ How would the tax interact with existing regulations and state programs? ■ What would be the initial level of tax, and how fast would it rise? ■ How much revenue would it raise? ■ How would it effect the economy? ■ How would costs be distributed across households and businesses? ■ How would various uses of the revenue affect distributional outcomes and economic efficiency? C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Interaction with Existing Regulations and State Programs ■ Would the tax replace existing and proposed programs? – The CPP – State and regional cap-and-trade programs – State renewable portfolio standards ■ Effects if the tax is layered on existing programs or if entities in states with existing programs were exempt from the tax – Marginal cost of reducing emissions would vary across states – Revenue would be less than if federal program superseded state programs • Amount of revenue reduction would be greater if entities in states with existing programs were exempt from the tax than if tax was layered on existing programs C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Level of a Tax and Rate of Increase Similarities and Differences from Cap-and-Trade Programs ■ Under cap-and-trade, price of allowances and rate of increase determined by the cap and by firms’ decisions about banking and borrowing allowances. ■ For ACES Act, CBO estimated that the initial price of allowances would be $15 and that price would rise at 5.6 percent annually ■ In contrast, policymakers would choose the initial tax and the rate of increase. Could be based on: – Initial tax and rate of increase expected to achieve desired emission reduction – Initial tax and rate of increase expected to equal marginal benefits of emission reductions – Other factors C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Levels if Tax Set at Interagency Working Group’s Estimate of Social Cost of Carbon --------------------------------Discount Rate------------------------------- 5 Percent 3 Percent 2.5 Percent SCC (2011 dollars) 2015 12 39 61 2020 13 46 68 2025 15 50 74 2030 17 55 80 2035 20 60 85 2040 22 65 92 2045 26 70 98 2050 28 76 104 Average Rate of increase in SCC, 2015–2050 2.6 2.0 1.6 Source: Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis - Under Executive Order 12866 (May 2013), www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_of_carbon_for_ria_2013_update.pdf The efficient level of the tax is not necessarily equal to the SCC and depends on numerous considerations, including existing regulations, the use of the revenue, projected offsetting increases in emissions overseas, and potential co-benefits. C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Revenue Potential: Example from CBO’s Budget Options Billions of dollars Fiscal 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014 Year - 2023 Change in 63 98 100 103 107 111 114 118 121 125 1060 Revenues Sources: Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation; Congressional Budget Office. Based on a tax of $25 per metric ton of CO 2 , which takes effect in January 2014 and rises at a real annual rate of 2 percent C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Not Accounting for the Revenue, Carbon Tax Would Have Negative Economic Effects C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Using Revenue to Reduce Deficits Would Offset At Least Part of the Economic Cost of the Tax ■ The effects of deficits in the long run, if the economy is at its maximum sustainable level – Crowd out private-sector investment – Require rising interest payments – Restrict ability to use fiscal policy to respond to unexpected challenges – Increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis ■ Effects if revenue was used to reduce deficits, – Long-term effect on output would depend on the relative size of the negative effect of the tax and the positive effect of lower deficits; CBO has not quantified those effects – Earlier CBO analysis found that eliminating certain tax cuts would boost output in long run – If the carbon tax was more costly than the changes in taxes considered in that analysis, the increase in output would be smaller, or negative C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Using Revenue to Reduce Existing Marginal Tax Rates (a “Tax Swap”) Would Also Lower Economic Cost ■ Current taxes on individual and corporate income reduce the supply of labor and capital, lowering output ■ CBO has not examined the effect of carbon tax swaps; other researchers have found variety of effects – Tax swaps could significantly lower the economic cost of carbon tax, but not enough to raise output – Tax swaps that lower tax rates on capital would increase output but ones that lower tax rates on labor would not ■ Different studies reach different conclusions for several reasons – Details of the tax swaps examined – Use different measures to evaluate swaps – Differences among models C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Distributional Effects of a Carbon Tax ■ Effects on various households would depend on – How they use their income and the mix of goods and services that they consume – The area of the country in which they live (e.g., electricity price increases will vary) – The source of their income (wages, investments, transfer income) – The industries in which they work and invest (transitional effects) ■ The ultimate effects on households would depend on how the revenue from a carbon tax was used C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Researchers Have Used a Variety of Methods of Examining Distributional Effects ■ Most studies primarily focus on effects caused by differences in uses of household income – Assume tax increases overall price level and changes relative prices – Estimate how higher prices increase the cost of purchases for households in different income groups ■ Some studies examine effects caused by differences in both sources and uses of income: – Determine how the tax would affect households’ income (assuming that the tax lowers wages and returns to capital) – Adjust households’ burdens to reflect differences in consumption and changes in relative prices ■ Studies rely on different measures of households’ ability to absorb the tax, typically annual income or consumption C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Based on a Variety of Methods, Most Studies Find a Carbon Tax Regressive (not accounting for use of revenue); Degree Varies Percent of household income 3.5 3 2.5 First Quintile Burden 2 Second Quintile Burden 1.5 Relative to Middle Quintile Fourth Quintile Burden Burden 1 Fifth Quintile 0.5 Burden 0 Uses/Annual Income Uses/Annual Income Uses/Annual Sources and Consumption Uses/Annual Income CBO (2009) Hassett et al. (2012) Hassett et al. (2012) Marron & Toder (2013) Ultimate distributional effects depend on how policymakers use the revenue C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Questions About Potential Uses of the Revenue ■ What share of low-income households would benefit from that use of the revenue? ■ Would that use provide a proportionally larger benefit for lower income households (offsetting the regressivity of the tax itself)? ■ Would that use entail significant administrative costs? ■ Would that use reduce the aggregate economic cost of the carbon tax by encouraging people to work and invest? ■ Would that use undermine incentives to reduce emissions? Tradeoffs are likely C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Recommend
More recommend
